ONE WORLD ORDER CLIMATE CHANGE PACT APPROVED BY 200 NATIONS: (AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH)

#‎parisagreement‬

ONE WORLD ORDER CLIMATE CHANGE PACT APPROVED BY 200 NATIONS: (AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH)

"PARIS AGREEMENT" IS NOT REALLY ABOUT REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS.

GOOD-BYE FOREVER TO THE MIDDLE CLASS.

~ Climate change pact adopted by delegates of nearly 200 nations

LE BOURGET, France -

Nearly 200 nations adopted the first global pact to fight climate change on Saturday, calling on the world to collectively cut and then eliminate greenhouse gas pollution but imposing no sanctions on countries that don't.

The "Paris agreement" aims to keep global temperatures from rising another degree Celsius (1.8 Fahrenheit) between now and 2100, a key demand of poor countries ravaged by rising sea levels and other effects of climate change.

The countries pledge to limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the same levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally, beginning at some point between 2050 and 2100.

Achieving such a reduction in emissions would involve a complete transformation of how people get energy, and many activists worry that despite the pledges, countries are not ready to make such profound and costly changes.

The deal now needs to be ratified by individual governments - at least 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of global emissions - before taking effect.

The White House is calling the Paris accord "the most ambitious climate change agreement in history" and says it establishes "a long-term, durable global framework" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is praising the new accord on global warming as a deal that will save the world for generations to come, saying "it's a victory for all of the planet and for future generations."

Kerry told fellow negotiators Saturday in Paris that "it will help the world prepare for the impacts of climate change that are already here and also for those that we already know are on our way inevitably." He added the pact would "prevent the worst most devastating consequences of climate change from ever happening."

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore says "years from now, our grandchildren will reflect on humanity's moral courage to solve the climate crisis. And they will look to December 12, 2015, as the day when the community of nations finally made the decision to act."

Nicaragua's U.S.-born climate envoy, Paul Oquist, told climate negotiators that his country is "not able to support the consensus." He said the agreement does not go far enough and leads to twice as much global warming as the stated goals.

South African environment minister Edna Molewa calls the pact "the best we can get at this historic moment."

She says it "can map a turning point to a better and safer world" but she added that developed countries still have to cut emissions more and help poorer nations to counter the effects of global warming.

Post Sources: AP, WTHR, PBS, YouTube

CLIMATE CHANGE LAWS WILL DESTROY MIDDLE CLASS ON PLANET EARTH (MORE INCONVENIENT TAXES & REGULATIONS)

Global CLIMATE CHANGE Laws (new TAXES) being pushed by Pres OBAMA and other Elite world leaders will not "Save the Planet", nor "Protect the Future of our Children".

So what is the real "INCONVENIENT TRUTH" about CLIMATE CHANGE??

Is it only about reducing CARBON EMISSIONS?

These new set of Global CLIMATE CHANGE Taxes and Regulations being pushed by the Wealthy Elite, will in fact help to reconfigure Mankind on planet Earth via destroying the current Middle Class and eliminating people stuck in Poverty.

It is really all about making the Super RICH more Wealthy by creating only two Economic groups:

~ The Elite, Super Wealthy & Big Banks - LEADERS

~ A New Lower Class - WORKING SERVANTS

~ NO MORE MIDDLE CLASS



~ Climate Change Laws Hurt The Poor And Benefit No One: Why Are Political Elites Pushing So Hard?

August 21, 2015 by Bob Loewen
Bob Loewen is the chairman of the California Policy Center.

I was eighteen years old in 1966 when my plane circled the tiny airport in Ontario, California. I was traveling from the Bay Area to Claremont to begin my freshman year in college. Looking down from my window seat, the overcast cloud cover prevented me from seeing the freeways and buildings on the ground. When we landed, however, I looked up and saw a hazy blue sky. Then I realized that I was looking up through the cloud cover that I had observed from above. To my horror, what I had seen below me from the sky was not cloud cover at all; it was thick, brown smog, and I was breathing it.

That was the day I became an environmentalist. Although I have a libertarian’s skepticism of government, many times I have supported government programs to clean up the air, water, forests and beaches. In this way, I am like other Californians. Because all of us love and defend the natural resources of our state, the brand “environmentalist” is almost as popular as Santa Claus.

George Orwell warned, however, “political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” [1] California’s climate change laws have nothing to do with removing smog or keeping California’s beaches clean. They hurt the poor and benefit no one. Yet a political elite has managed to impose its will on the California economy without having to explain why it has chosen to hurt the poor for no benefit to the public largely because they use the label “environmentalist”. It is time to hold them accountable.

Orwell’s warning also applies to the substance of the climate change conversation. The climate change elites do not discuss climate change issues in the manner of scientists; they collapse multiple distinct issues into demonizing rhetoric: “The science is settled,” they say in response to every argument that is made; this means that the opponent is a “science denier”. Seldom is this rhetoric even arguably responsive.

While science is one of the principal subjects of the discussion about predicting earth’s climate future through scientific computer modeling, it is no more than political rhetoric to argue that one scientist is so completely wrong in his opinion, and the other so clearly correct, that the first is “denying” the very principles of science. And this is not even the main point of this essay…

Opponents who have other reasons for their opposition to climate change laws usually do not challenge the science. Assuming the climate change outcomes have been predicted accurately by proponents, for example, opponents nevertheless contend that enforcement of climate change laws will not eliminate or delay the predicted harmful effects of climate change because reductions in GHG emissions required by California (or EPA) are more than offset by increased emissions from new power generation plants in China and India.

Opponents who make this point do not deny the science; they embrace it.

The climate change elites do not respond to this point as a distinct argument for which they are accountable; at most, they pretend that the issue does not exist, a slick move worthy of Orwell’s admonition about “political speech”.

California has the most aggressive climate change laws of any state in the nation and is the only state imposing a cap and trade protocol on emitters. It requires that GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels no later than 2020.

This year, new laws have been proposed to tighten that standard, requiring that 2020 emissions be reduced to 80% below 1990 levels. Other restrictions include specific requirements that specified minimum levels of wind and solar power be included in the mix of power sources.

All of this makes power in California the most expensive in the nation.

According to the Manhattan Institute, “California’s renewable energy mandates and climate change policies . . . are having a disproportionate economic impact on the poor.” [2] The report found that “in 2012, about 1 million California households were living in energy poverty, a term that applies to households that spend 10 percent, or more, of their income on household energy costs.”

There is a considerable disparity between wealthy areas, such as Mill Valley in Marin County, whose monthly energy costs were only $200 per home because of mild weather conditions, and middle-income areas, such as the town of Hanford in the San Joaquin Valley, where harsher average weather leads to average monthly energy costs of about $500 per home.

The climate change elite is leaving the poor and middle class behind in other ways too.

The Manhattan Institute study found that because of the high cost of compliance (estimated $115 billion to meet renewable requirements alone), California’s climate change laws are forcing businesses out of the state, resulting in job losses. There are also collateral effects from the general hostility of climate change elites to any business involved with fossil fuels. Take fracking, for example. Two years ago, Californians were excited about the potential for thousands of jobs when we learned that California’s shale formations are even richer than those in boom states like North Dakota. [3] A USC study predicted that fossil fuels from shale would provide “up to 2.8 million jobs, increasing the state’s total economic output by up to 14.3 percent . . . boosting personal income by up to 10 percent.” [4] Due to actions in Sacramento, nothing has happened. Why not? A public official who wants to help the poor and middle class close the economic gap has enough information to allow fracking to proceed, but for now, the political elites prefer to keep fossil fuels right where they are, embedded deep in California’s shale.

Most troubling is that the goals of climate change laws are not achieved even when they are strictly enforced. For example, the EPA is pressuring American utilities to stop using coal because it generates more GHGs than other fuel sources. India and China, however, both build coal-fired power plants faster than the United States can remove its own. [5] Eric Roston, writing for Bloomberg Business, observes “’The U.S. is dropping coal plants at an unprecedented rate, but still nowhere as quickly as India is adding them,” and “By 2020 India may have built about 2.5 times as much capacity [in coal] as the U.S. is about to lose.” [6]

China, “the world’s biggest coal addict by far,” has a plan to build hundreds of coal plants, which negates the efficacy of emissions limits imposed by political elites in this country. Eric Lawson of Princeton University, known for his strong stance in favor of the science of climate change, is quoted by Stephen Moore in Investors Business Daily: “From 2010 through 2013, (China) added half the coal generation of the entire U.S. At the peak, from 2005 through 2011, China added roughly two 600-megawatt coal plants a week for seven straight years. [7] And according to U.S. government projections, China will add yet another U.S. worth of coal plants over the next 10 years, or the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for 10 years.”

California’s climate change laws are particularly vulnerable to the criticism that they will not change the predicted outcome of man-made warming because, according to the Manhattan Institute study, all of California’s emissions are only 1% of GHG emissions worldwide and 6% of total U.S. emissions. There are no climate models that support the idea that reduction of some or all of those amounts will affect global climate change given increases of emissions in China and India.
Instead of responding directly to these criticisms, some have argued that China and India will change; if the U.S. sticks with its stringent emission reduction policies, they contend, our example will encourage them to reverse the increases in emissions that represent their recent history and turn those into reductions in emissions.

This is pure Utopian fantasy.

About 900 coal plants are currently planned in China and India.

Where is the evidence that India or China have made any plans to change these to lower-emission energy plants? What plans have been made to tear down the existing coal plants and replace them? Absent concrete plans, the follow-my-lead theory is far-fetched.

There is no precedent to suggest that follow-my-lead will succeed. There is, however, precedent suggesting it will not succeed. In California, proponents of AB32 sold the most aggressive state law on climate change in America partly on the follow-my-lead theory. They told Californians that when AB32 was enacted, other states would follow California’s example by adopting statutes similar to AB32.

This effort failed; not one state has adopted a climate change law like California’s. Since it should have been easier to convince another state, like Oregon, to join California on climate change law than to convince a sovereign nation like China, California’s experience disproves the follow-my-lead theory.

Proponents of climate change laws point to the “Joint Announcement” on climate change dated November 12, 2014 signed during President Obama’s visit to China as supposed proof that China is willing to reconsider its policy of increasing emissions.

The Joint Agreement, however, confirms that China will continue to increase its emissions through at least 2030. Much false information has been implied about this nonbinding statement. But it is available on line, and its meaning is pretty clear.

[8] China does not commit anywhere in the document to reduce its emissions; it only states, without agreeing, that it might reach a peak in its increases by 2030. By signing the Joint Agreement, President Obama effectively acknowledges that current conditions will not change before 2030 at the earliest. This means that the heavy burdens created by California’s emissions limits cannot achieve the intended benefits until sometime after that date.

These critical problems with climate change laws have been known for a long time.

Yet climate change elites do not respond to them, making it clear that they have no response that makes sense. This does not mean that nothing should be done about climate change.

But it does mean we need to change the laws that are hurting the poor and middle class, examine what is possible in the area of adaptation, and hold the political elites accountable. The future of California depends on it.

FOOTNOTES

(1) “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell, 1946
(2) “Renewable Energy Mandates Same As A Tax On The Poor,” by Robert Bryce, Manhattan Institute, 7/26/2015
(3) “Fixing California: Will Fracking Bonanza Be Allowed?,” Chris Reed, CPC Prosperity Forum, 9/30/2013
(4) “The Monterey Shale & California’s Economic Future,” USC Price School of Public Policy, March 2013
(5) “World Falls In Love With Coal That Obama Is Waging War On,” Stephen Moore Investor’s Business Daily, 8/7/2015
(6) “The Grim Promise of India’s Coal-Powered Future,” Eric Roston, Bloomberg Business, 5/21/2015
(7) “World Falls In Love With Coal That Obama Is Waging War On,” Stephen Moore Investor’s Business Daily, 8/7/2015
(8) U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change, 11/12/2014


Sources: California Policy Center, Manhattan Institute, Fox News, YouTube, CPC Prosperity, USC Price School of Public Policy

Copenhagen Boycott Ends, Al Gore Receives Rock Star Welcome

Sarah Palin's Climate Change arguments heat up. She disputes Al Gore's claims of the urgency of signing a Climate Change Global Agreement.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Al Gore arrives in Copenhagen

As international climate talks appeared in danger of disintegrating, Al Gore arrived to a rock star’s welcome in Copenhagen today.

If Copenhagen is the enviros' Woodstock, then Gore is The Who, the Grateful Dead and Creedence Clearwater Revival as a one-man band. The former vice president drew such a big crowd that security had to shut down access, with hundreds of unhappy activists left outside.

Inside the mobbed room, Gore watched as Danish and Norwegian officials presented a new scientific report that the sea levels are rising much faster than previous estimates.

“We can feel that global warming is coming to Copenhagen,” joked Jonas Gahr Stoer, Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, alluding to the heat in the crammed room.

Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs Per Stig Moeller said the event, organized jointly by Denmark and Norway, delivered a “forceful message. . . that the time for collective action is now.”

Moeller also quoted the 19th century conservative British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, saying that “to be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge,” drawing a chuckle from Gore who, last week, traded barbs with Sarah Palin, describing her as a global warming “denier.”

The former vice president has scrapped a $1,200-a-head fundraiser for 3,000 guests scheduled for later in the week, to the dismay of Danish organizers.





Copenhagen Talks Resume after Boycott

After a boycott led by African nations early on Monday, the Copenhagen climate-change talks have resumed. The point of contention was over whether or not to keep the Kyoto protocol as part of a new deal or replace it with a new treaty.

The developing countries, including china, India, and Brazil, want to keep Kyoto because it requires poor nations to cut emissions less than developed ones; developed countries want to bind emerging economies to targets “We can never accept the killing of the Kyoto protocol,” said the chief delegate for Mali.



View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, The Daily Beast, Financial Times, MSNBC, Google Maps

Do Hacked E-mails Help Prove Climate Change Theory To Be False?

Hackers steal electronic data from top Climate Research Center


Hackers broke into the electronic files of one of the world's foremost climate research centers this week and posted an array of e-mails in which prominent scientists engaged in a blunt discussion of global warming research and disparaged climate-change skeptics.

The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear as if humans are causing global warming. The researchers, however, say the e-mails have been taken out of context and merely reflect an honest exchange of ideas.

University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents, but said they could not say how many of the stolen items were authentic.

"We are aware that information from a server in one area of the university has been made available on public websites," the statement says. "We are extremely concerned that personal information about individuals may have been compromised. Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm what proportion of this material is genuine."

Michael E. Mann, who directs the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said in a telephone interview from Paris that skeptics are "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious."

In one e-mail from 1999, the center's director, Phil Jones, alludes to one of Mann's articles in the journal Nature and writes, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Mann said the "trick" Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. "It's hardly anything you would call a trick," Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.

But Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said this and other exchanges show researchers have colluded to establish the scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.

"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

In one e-mail, Ben Santer, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, offered to beat up skeptic Pat Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, out of sympathy for Jones.

Neither Jones nor Santer could be reached for comment.




U.S. Chamber files suit over Climate Change Hoax


The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a civil complaint on Monday against members of a liberal activist group who staged a news conference to falsely announce that the 3 million-member business federation had reversed its stance on climate change legislation.

"The defendants are not merry pranksters tweaking the establishment," said Steven Law, general counsel for the chamber. "Instead, they deliberately broke the law in order to further commercial interest in their books, movies and other merchandise."

The chamber said it filed the complaint in U.S. District Court in Washington to protect its trademark and other intellectual property from unlawful use by members of the group known as Yes Men and others involved in the group's commercial enterprises. The activists misappropriated the chamber's logo, created a fraudulent Web site and falsely claimed to be speaking as the chamber under the group's copyright, the chamber said in a statement.

As part of its hoax on Oct. 19, Yes Men announced at the National Press Club that the chamber would stop lobbying against the Senate's 800-page climate bill. Reuters moved a story based on the false press release, and both CNBC and Fox Business Network reported it — with the anchors correcting themselves mid-story upon learning it was false.

The chamber has taken heat from some of its members because of its position against the climate bill.

Some companies have defected from the group, including Apple Inc., Exelon Corp., Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and the Public Service Co. of New Mexico.




Anthony Foxx pledges to sign Climate Agreement


Anthony Foxx said his first act as Charlotte mayor will be to sign the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, which incumbent Republican Pat McCrory refused to do.

More than a dozen N.C. cities have joined the campaign against global warming. By signing, the communities pledge to work toward cutting emissions of greenhouse gases to pre-1990 levels.

McCrory helped draft the measure as chair of the U.S. Conference of Mayors environmental committee. But he refused to sign it two years ago because it didn't include nuclear power as an alternative energy source.

Foxx said he would put Charlotte on board "with the stroke of a pen."



View Larger Map


Sources: Washington Post, University of East Anglia, MSNBC, BBC, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Paramount Pictures, McClathchy Newspapers, Charlotte Observer, Space Monkey Productions, Wikipedia, PA, Youtube, Google Maps